Just for the record, it's only one film. It stopped halfway through the story (at the battle of Helm's Deep), and there was supposed to be second film telling the rest of the story. But it never materialized. The one they finished sucked anyway, so no big loss.

NakedElf wrote:Well, sometimes the technology or budget can be improved upon. I mean, imagine if they'd made a LOTR movie back in the 60s... It just seems like it wouldn't be as cool as what we can do these days.

Hmm, I don't think better technology and more money is a good justification for a remake in itself. Unless you have something significantly new to add in the storytelling/interpretation department, I think most remakes are exercises in artistic pointlessness. Seems they get made mostly because they can be marketed as new films to an audience who were too young to remember the originals (it's not like studios usually brag about remakes being remakes).

NakedElf wrote:Well, sometimes the technology or budget can be improved upon. I mean, imagine if they'd made a LOTR movie back in the 60s... It just seems like it wouldn't be as cool as what we can do these days.

Hmm, I don't think better technology and more money is a good justification for a remake in itself. Unless you have something significantly new to add in the storytelling/interpretation department, I think most remakes are exercises in artistic pointlessness. Seems they get made mostly because they can be marketed as new films to an audience who were too young to remember the originals (it's not like studios usually brag about remakes being remakes).

Of course it is, given the right circumstances. Some movies, big budget and special effects aren't going to matter. When Harry Met Sally isn't going to get better if you throw in good special effects because the movie doesn't *need* good special effects.

LOTR takes place in an entirely fictional fantasy world full of elves and dwarves and hobbits. In order to depict that world in anything even remotely resembling the way it's depicted in the books/people imagine it you're either going to have to animate it (and even then you'll need a good animation budget,) or have some really good sets and special effects (which of course cost money.)

Simply put, until someone finds a real balrog in the wilds of Siberia or something, without a good budget and effects you're going to get a crappy looking balrog.

NakedElf wrote:Well, sometimes the technology or budget can be improved upon. I mean, imagine if they'd made a LOTR movie back in the 60s... It just seems like it wouldn't be as cool as what we can do these days.

Hmm, I don't think better technology and more money is a good justification for a remake in itself. Unless you have something significantly new to add in the storytelling/interpretation department, I think most remakes are exercises in artistic pointlessness. Seems they get made mostly because they can be marketed as new films to an audience who were too young to remember the originals (it's not like studios usually brag about remakes being remakes).

Of course it is, given the right circumstances. Some movies, big budget and special effects aren't going to matter. When Harry Met Sally isn't going to get better if you throw in good special effects because the movie doesn't *need* good special effects.

LOTR takes place in an entirely fictional fantasy world full of elves and dwarves and hobbits. In order to depict that world in anything even remotely resembling the way it's depicted in the books/people imagine it you're either going to have to animate it (and even then you'll need a good animation budget,) or have some really good sets and special effects (which of course cost money.)

You're absolutely right about how filmmaking technology needs to be able to convey properly what's (supposed to be) going on onscreen. In theory, that could be applied to make a new and better version of something that had a good story but failed in the production department. It's just that I can't think of a specific example of a remake that actually was significantly better than the original. I can think of one or two remakes that were about as good as the original, but that's it.

(I wouldn't count Jackson's LOTR as a remake - it's based on the novel, not on Bakshi's previous film.)

Paul Escobar wrote:You're absolutely right about how filmmaking technology needs to be able to convey properly what's (supposed to be) going on onscreen. In theory, that could be applied to make a new and better version of something that had a good story but failed in the production department. It's just that I can't think of a specific example of a remake that actually was significantly better than the original. I can think of one or two remakes that were about as good as the original, but that's it.

(I wouldn't count Jackson's LOTR as a remake - it's based on the novel, not on Bakshi's previous film.)

Whether or not we count them as 'remakes', I remember some old films of stories like Jason and the Argonauts which could be pretty awesome with some new effects. The skeleton scene I think is starting to look a little silly.

NakedElf wrote:Whether or not we count them as 'remakes', I remember some old films of stories like Jason and the Argonauts which could be pretty awesome with some new effects. The skeleton scene I think is starting to look a little silly.

That could probably end up looking really wicked.

But overall, I'm a bit biased against remakes - I have a fondness for old sci-fi and monster movies with cardboard spaceships and papier mâché monsters. I think it'd be a bit of a shame updating them and losing the corny charm...